Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Comparison of Proximal and Distal Isocenter Outcomes
- 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- 2Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
- 3Department of Neurosurgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
Abstract
Purpose
Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a chronic neuropathic pain condition affecting the trigeminal nerve, with an incidence of approximately 4 to 5 per 100,000 persons annually, increasing to 20 per 100,000 after age 60 years, and a female-to-male ratio of approximately 3:2. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivered by Gamma Knife or linear accelerators is a noninvasive alternative to surgical approaches for medically refractory cases. Although SRS for TN is commonly performed, consensus regarding optimal anatomic targeting remains lacking, with the 2 most common targets being the dorsal root entry zone (proximal) and the retrogasserian zone (distal). This study aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in patients with TN treated with SRS based on proximal versus distal isocenter target locations.Methods and materials
This multicenter retrospective analysis included patients treated for TN between 2017 and 2021 with Gamma Knife or linear accelerator-based SRS who were followed for at least 1 year. All patients received 85 Gy prescribed to the isocenter, located in either the dorsal root entry zone (proximal) or the retrogasserian zone (distal). Patient-reported pain relief was recorded as complete, partial, or absent. Duration of pain relief and medication de-escalation were also assessed. Outcomes were compared using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards analysis.Results
Eighty-six patients were included: 54 of 86 (63%) treated with proximal targeting (median age, 63 years; 72% women) and 32 of 86 (37%) with distal targeting (median age, 66 years; 71% women). Overall pain relief rates were 74% (proximal) and 90% (distal), although complete pain relief rates were 46% (proximal) and 31% (distal) (p = .011). Duration of pain relief did not differ significantly between groups (p = .18). Complete medication de-escalation was more frequent with proximal targeting (39% vs 13%), although partial de-escalation was more common with distal targeting (75% vs 33%) (P = .001).Conclusions
Both proximal and distal targeting approaches achieve high response rates for TN. Distal targeting may be associated with higher rates of any pain improvement, whereas proximal targeting may be associated with higher rates of complete pain relief and complete medication discontinuation. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigation of efficacy and safety differences between these 2 approaches.
Related
- Tumor-Related Trigeminal Neuralgia: Clinical Features, Pathophysiology, and the Contemporary Role of Radiosurgery in Tumor Control and Pain Relief
- Recurrent trigeminal neuralgia caused by an anomalous cerebellar artery arising from the persistent primitive trigeminal artery: illustrative case.
- Atypical Presentation of a Meningioma Masquerading as Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Diagnostic Challenge in the Emergency Department.
- Stereotactic radiosurgery for isolated intracranial immunoglobulin G4 disease: An illustrative case.
- Quality and readability of online patient education materials for trigeminal Neuralgia: A cross-sectional review
BibTeX
@article{hopkins2026stereotactic,
title = {{Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Comparison of Proximal and Distal Isocenter Outcomes}},
author = {Benjamin Hopkins and David Qian and Nicholis Boulis and Christopher Deibert and Xiaojun Jiang and Matt Giles and Justin Roper and Sunil Dutta and Lisa Sudmeier and Zachary Buchwald and Bree Eaton and Hui-Kuo Shu and Jim Zhong},
journal = {Advances in radiation oncology},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1016/j.adro.2026.102220},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13717088},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Stereotactic Radiosurgery for Trigeminal Neuralgia: A Comparison of Proximal and Distal Isocenter Outcomes
AU - Benjamin Hopkins
AU - David Qian
AU - Nicholis Boulis
AU - Christopher Deibert
AU - Xiaojun Jiang
AU - Matt Giles
AU - Justin Roper
AU - Sunil Dutta
AU - Lisa Sudmeier
AU - Zachary Buchwald
AU - Bree Eaton
AU - Hui-Kuo Shu
AU - Jim Zhong
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/17
JO - Advances in radiation oncology
DO - 10.1016/j.adro.2026.102220
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13717088
AB - Purpose Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is a chronic neuropathic pain condition affecting the trigeminal nerve, with an incidence of approximately 4 to 5 per 100,000 persons annually, increasing to 20 per 100,000 after age 60 years, and a female-to-male ratio of approximately 3:2. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) delivered by Gamma Knife or linear accelerators is a noninvasive alternative to surgical approaches for medically refractory cases. Although SRS for TN is commonly performed, consensus regarding optimal anatomic targeting remains lacking, with the 2 most common targets being the dorsal root entry zone (proximal) and the retrogasserian zone (distal). This study aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in patients with TN treated with SRS based on proximal versus distal isocenter target locations.Methods and materials This multicenter retrospective analysis included patients treated for TN between 2017 and 2021 with Gamma Knife or linear accelerator-based SRS who were followed for at least 1 year. All patients received 85 Gy prescribed to the isocenter, located in either the dorsal root entry zone (proximal) or the retrogasserian zone (distal). Patient-reported pain relief was recorded as complete, partial, or absent. Duration of pain relief and medication de-escalation were also assessed. Outcomes were compared using the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards analysis.Results Eighty-six patients were included: 54 of 86 (63%) treated with proximal targeting (median age, 63 years; 72% women) and 32 of 86 (37%) with distal targeting (median age, 66 years; 71% women). Overall pain relief rates were 74% (proximal) and 90% (distal), although complete pain relief rates were 46% (proximal) and 31% (distal) (p = .011). Duration of pain relief did not differ significantly between groups (p = .18). Complete medication de-escalation was more frequent with proximal targeting (39% vs 13%), although partial de-escalation was more common with distal targeting (75% vs 33%) (P = .001).Conclusions Both proximal and distal targeting approaches achieve high response rates for TN. Distal targeting may be associated with higher rates of any pain improvement, whereas proximal targeting may be associated with higher rates of complete pain relief and complete medication discontinuation. These findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant further investigation of efficacy and safety differences between these 2 approaches.
SN - 2452-1094
ER -